Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, further to the question put by the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, have the Government considered how useful it would be to demonstrate to the Americans that there is a reciprocal relationship among open societies that allows one's NGOs naturally to operate across borders in each other's countries? The Russians appear to consider that foreign NGOs are a one-way force for intervention in their society. Can the Government, for example, make greater efforts to ensure that when we hold elections in this country, Russian observers are invited to inspect them? If we expect to inspect Russian elections, we should, in turn, invite others to come and inspect ours—which are not without occasional imperfections.

Lord Adonis: My Lords, taken as a whole, it has been a highly constructive addition to the education system and is why school results in primary and secondary schools have risen consistently and significantly since performance data has been published.

Estate Agents (Independent Redress Scheme) (HL)

Baroness Williams of Crosby: I apologise that against the breaking wave of Peers leaving the Chamber I was a little slow in reaching my seat.
	The purpose of these amendments is to exclude from the sweep of the Bill, which as the Committee will know is a wide and not very clear sweep, academic research related to the pursuit of knowledge and to teaching and education. This is a crucial amendment—and it affects Amendment No. 45. Amendment No. 83 is slightly different because it relates to the sections of the Bill that deal with noxious and other substances. I will come back to that. There are two great problems for those in the academic library and university world.
	First, we fully recognise and appreciate the concessions that the Minister outlined in Committee on 5 December. Nevertheless, while she graciously agreed to an extension of the defence against a charge that somebody has been disseminating publications, and in other ways instructing the encouragement of terrorism, the difficulty is that the defence does not deal with the cases that might be brought against an academic or a librarian, given that no question of intent is written into the Bill. We will come back to that in a later group of amendments.
	Although there may be an effective defence because the Minister has altered the definition of recklessness to be subjective, not objective, many cases may still arise. Universities and libraries are especially concerned by what they describe as the possible creation of an atmosphere of apprehension and fear. By that they mean that while it remains somewhat uncertain on what basis a particular instructor or librarian may be prosecuted. The possibility of going to court is a substantial inhibition to free and open expression in instruction, teaching, discussion and debate.
	Let me explain what the person concerned may be up against. Initially, they would have to prepare a defence. They may well be engaged in legal expenses to prepare that defence. The very thought of going to a court is itself a considerable inhibition to someone who is genuinely acting as a professional in the university or library world. The real danger of the Bill is what I described on our first day in Committee as the chilling effect. People may deliberately decide not to provide their students with teaching materials or instruct in ways that draw on examples of terrorism or action involving violence. Librarians may be unwilling to loan books that could possibly be described as encouraging terrorism.
	The problem here is a direct contradiction. On one side, it is the responsibility of universities and their associated libraries to try to extend the understanding of that terrifying and little-understood phenomenon. In order to teach classes about such matters as the rise of Islamic fundamentalism or terrorism of the past, such as that of the IRA, a teacher may well want to hand out information that could be used by students in analysing and discussing those matters. It is the essence of the freedom of expression and the free pursuit of knowledge that such information can be made available. However, the responsible and thoughtful academic, recognising that that is a crucial part of instructing his students in such matters, would be inhibited by the thought that he might have to go as far as a court to establish a defence. Much the same is true in the case of libraries where, especially in the case of the major university libraries, it is impossible for them to know the full content of the books that they lend and endorse in the sense of accepting and cataloguing them. That presents a major difficulty.
	When the Minister of State for Higher Education, Mr Rammell, said in another place that many of those fears were misplaced, it was interesting that he immediately referred to the fact that Clause 1 had now been limited by the inclusion of intent. My noble friend Lord Goodhart and other Members of the Committee will raise that in more detail when we discuss the next group of amendments. In addition to the fact that there are real problems about establishing a defence there is the difficulty that many cases that should not come forward will. That will have the chilling effect that I mentioned earlier.
	Let me give another example, which is based on Amendment No. 83. The Bill refers to:
	"the making, handling or use of a noxious substance".
	That is not a bad description of the discipline of chemistry. What does a chemist teaching his science do when he is aware that even the most basic textbooks in chemistry deal with the use, handling and manufacture of noxious substances? The blighting effect on one of the most important areas of the advancement of knowledge in our country could be very grave. There would not just be the blighting effect on existing academics; it could extend to those whom we wish to recruit to our universities and to students. The Royal Society of Chemistry, in a letter to the Home Secretary, which was mentioned on the first day in Committee, drew attention to the extreme problems that that presents for a science teacher, whether in a university, a further education college or elsewhere.
	We suggest, in this important amendment, direct exclusion of those working professionally in those fields and disseminating knowledge or making statements directly related to that professional responsibility. I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, would agree that, when she put before us the very welcome concessions that she proposed, particularly to Clause 1(7) and Clause 2(9), some of us had a problem ensuring that that covered the area that we are deeply concerned about. Would I be right in putting the following interpretation on what she then said? I do so in a spirit of probing her intentions, not of trying at this stage to criticise them.
	First, on Amendment No. 21, under Clause 1, would academic teaching be excluded unless it directly involved the encouragement of terrorism? Will the noble Baroness consider, for example, putting in a clause that indicates the exclusion of people pursuing their professional duties? The insertion of the intent in Clause 1(2)(b) has helped, and so does Amendment No. 79, which removes the reference to suspects. However, does the noble Baroness agree that that does not extend to Clause 2? Would we be right to assume that the noble Baroness proposes to delete the subsection in Clause 1 on recklessness, Clause 1(7)(a), and Clause 2(9)(d)? As such, would I be reasonably right to think that, in the case of recklessness, anyone whose teaching inadvertently encouraged terrorist activities in others would be exonerated, without the reference to intent by the very fact of those deletions?
	Would it be correct to assume that there would be a legitimate defence for any teacher in a university, college or other place of education if they could show that in quoting, publishing or making available literature related to terrorist activities, he or she did not endorse the sentiments and was making them available only for the purposes of education, and that that would be no longer a criminal offence? Does the noble Baroness also agree that, even though the test of defence has been extended, the burden of proof still rests on the defendant? That came out fairly clearly in our discussion on the first day in Committee.
	Is there any kind of defence on the basis of public interest? The Minister will know that in other broadly analogous legislation, for example, the Obscene Publications Act, if an objection is raised in the case of something that extends science, education or literature, that exemption is recognised. In this case would it be acceptable on the grounds of public interest that there should be a proper defence?
	None of that is quite how it ought to be. It would be much better if the second group of amendments concerning intent were written into Clause 2. But short of that, there are very real concerns, which I shall sum up. First, the possibility of criminalising a very wide range of activities remains in the Bill. I think that it was the Joint Committee on Human Rights which specifically said that there should be a definition of the offence requiring intent and likelihood. So far, that has not been met. Secondly, could the defence be mounted on the basis of the professional duties of those concerned? Will the Minister consider that? In particular, will she consider the very grave dangers of the chilling effect of this legislation as it stands? It is still unclear and extremely broad, despite the concessions that the Minister has made or proposes to make. For example, it would be extremely dangerous, because one objection by one student, who might have many motivations for that objection, could put the career of the teacher or lecturer at risk. Amendment No. 83 addresses the position of free discussion of scientific research, which is gravely at risk because of the terminology used so extensively in that clause.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I strongly support the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, who has made a broad sweep of her argument and has put the anxieties of universities extremely well. I want to make a simple point, from a non-lawyer's point of view, about natural justice. As I think that the noble Baroness indicated, so far in Committee the discussion has been about protecting librarians by strengthening the defence that they could deploy should they be charged with a criminal offence. It has been explained—if we did not know already—that if there is a strong defence in the Bill, charges will not be laid because it will not be possible to sustain them. But why should a librarian doing the job that he is employed to do be liable to be charged at all? Why should he have to appear in court on such a charge?
	On Second Reading, I spoke specifically about the University of St Andrews, which has an institute for the study of terrorism. In many ways, its situation is no different to any university except that it has a large stock in the library of material about terrorism to support its institute, which not only is useful to researchers, teachers and students, but also could be useful to a terrorist. Suppose a postgraduate student at the University of St Andrews goes to the library and takes out material which he says is to help with a thesis that he is writing. Some time later, a suicide bomber does his worst, say, in London. On searching the terrorists' home, the police find the very collection of material which was taken by the student from the library at St Andrews.
	Surely, Parliament should see to it that there is no question in British law that that librarian should be charged with a criminal offence, whether or not he has a strong defence. Clearly, it should be the student who is liable and should be charged. The librarian should be no more than a witness in court. Amendment No. 45, in particular, or something like it, would solve the problem. I realise that the wording may not be absolutely correct, but an amendment to that effect would mean that the librarian and the university governing body could not be held responsible. Such an amendment could be combined with a form to be signed at the university library on which the person taking out the material would say the purposes for which he requires it. That would be essential. I am no professional, but Parliament should ensure that librarians will not be appearing in court or threatened with appearing in court because of their work and the books that are stocked in the library. That is wrong. I support this amendment very strongly.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I am very anxious to give my noble friend Lady Warwick and the noble Baronesses, Lady Williams and Lady Carnegy of Lour, the reassurance they need. I appreciate that the Committee is in difficulty because I do not have at this moment the further amendments we propose to bring forward, which would, I am confident, set at rest the minds of the noble Baronesses. I say that because in drafting the Bill the Government were very clear that there was no intention to catch the ordinary philosophical academic discussion which is so much a part of the academic richness inherent in many of our universities and institutions, and, indeed, of the high-quality academic and other debate that takes in place this country. The furthest from our minds was any intention of providing a "chilling" effect on such appropriate discussion.
	The purposes of the Bill as it is, and as it will be when amended, are to ensure that those who act appropriately and professionally in the way discussed by the noble Baronesses will not be criminalised by it. An offence will be committed only by those who know that their pupils or the persons using the literature intend it to be used in the training of terrorist or for other purposes.
	I understand the Committee's anxiety and the anxiety of each noble Baroness who has spoken so far and I shall try now to go through some of the issues which are causing such concern. Academic teaching will not constitute an offence under Clause 1 unless there is encouragement to terrorism; it is done with intent or subjective recklessness; and the person is unable to show that he did not endorse the material. In Clause 2 the offence could be committed only if there was dissemination of a terrorist publication and the person was unable to show that he did not endorse the publication and did not intend it to be of use to terrorists.
	We have already removed Clause 1(3) from the Bill and, as I have indicated, by making further amendments we will also remove Clause 1(7)(a) and Clause 2(9)(b). Amendment No. 79, to which we will come later, also offers further protection for chemistry teachers.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: It can be proved by the words one uses and also by the context. The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, referred to the institution at St Andrews where the whole purport of its course is to discuss terrorism in a philosophical way. In that situation, it is perfectly possible for the academic to demonstrate that that was part of the course he was teaching; that it was promoted as such and that its whole purpose was to promote academic discussion.
	It may be simpler if I go through the way in which we put the matter and then, if I have not fully or properly explain our position, we can discuss further changes. I absolutely accept that there is a difficulty because the Committee does not have the final amendments I propose to bring forward. If and when we have them, it will be so much easier for Members of the Committee to be persuaded that the matter is clear.
	I see the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, rising to his feet. I do not know whether he is going to invite me not to say anything more and for us to rest until Report, but I will give way.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I will certainly table them as soon as I can. As is my usual practice, if we have time between Committee and Report, I will be more than willing to discuss these issues with interested Members of the Committee to make sure that we have a full opportunity to deal with them satisfactorily.
	It would be an advantage if I could now respond to the many questions that I have been asked, because after I have done that, noble Lords will perhaps be less anxious. We will then be able to continue with Committee and decide at the end of this discussion whether further debate is necessary. We are being a little precipitous, if I may respectfully say so. I will of course give way if the noble Lord wishes it.

Lord Kingsland: The Minister may or may not think that I am being helpful in what I am about to say. The purpose of asking for recommitment was not to delay the Bill for purely expedient reasons; it was to give the Minister the chance to discover a solution which was satisfactory to all sides of the Committee. The danger is that if we move to Report stage with the text of new amendments, with all the constraints that that implies, we may well end up with a vote on a matter which will create the kind of confrontation on the Bill which we all wish to avoid.
	Time spent in working one's way through these amendments to find a satisfactory compromise will help the political process enormously, in my submission. It was in that spirit that I made my suggestion. If the Minister were to table amendments a considerable time before Report, if such negotiations that she suggested were able to take place and if there emerged a solution of the sort that I had hoped, it would not be necessary to seek recommitment. However, on behalf of the Opposition, I must say that if a situation arises such that we feel debating these issues at Report would be over-constraining, we shall seek recommitment.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I quite understand that that is the position. My position is that I have heard very clearly the views of the House, expressed by Members whom we all respect. They speak about the academic richness of our country and about things that are proper and real, and we very much want to respond in a positive way that would alleviate those concerns. Therefore, in putting forward the submissions that I am about to put forward, we believe that we are meeting those concerns. Indeed, in our Amendment No. 79, we believe that we go further than Amendment No. 83, and we do so because we acknowledge the force of the concerns that have been expressed. Therefore, there is absolutely nothing between us.
	On our Benches, we have the very powerful voices of the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, on libraries and the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, on universities; the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, speaks with her usual authority on these issues, as has the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, in advancing the cause of the University of St Andrews. So we are all at one about the issues that need addressing so as to ensure that there is the certainty that we seek.
	As I have already said, we already have the indications that I gave on Monday in relation to Clauses 1(7) and 2(9). The concern was about statements or publications being in some circumstances objectionable but in others not so, and that it should therefore be illegal to publish or disseminate them in some circumstances but not in others. The clearest example of when it should not be illegal to use the material would be in purely academic contexts. The changes that I explained on Monday about the defences in Clauses 1(7) and 2(9) should provide sufficient comfort for the academics who are worried about Clauses 1 and 2. I explained the reasons for that at some length so, with the Committee's indulgence, I shall not repeat them in detail now. In summary, the changes that we propose to make mean that it will be a defence for a person to show that he did not endorse a statement, when it was clear in all the circumstances that he did not. In an academic circumstance it would be clear that he did not endorse it, that he did not endorse the publication, or that he did not intend it to be of use to terrorists. That is in Clause 2.
	I am confident that those changes will protect all legitimate academic interests. It will protect institutions such as the Centre for the Study of Terrorism and Political Violence at St Andrews University, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour. It will protect history faculties that touch on Islamic extremism, and debating societies and libraries throughout the United Kingdom. Therefore, I urge noble Lords in whose names Amendments Nos. 21 and 45 have been moved or tabled not to press them.
	I make a similar point about Amendment No. 83. The change that we intend to make to Clause 6 should be entirely acceptable, we hope, to everyone who has expressed concern about the clause. The Government have tabled Amendment No. 79, which will mean that a person will commit an offence under the clause only if he knows that the person to whom he is giving training intends to use it for terrorist purposes. In other words, if he suspects or believes that the person intends to use the training for terrorist purposes, he will not be committing an offence. Of course, if he does suspect or believe that his student intends to use the training for terrorist purposes, as a good citizen he may want to report the matter to the relevant authorities, but he will not be committing an offence if he continues to provide training—only if he knows.
	That means that only those who know that the intention of their pupils is to use the training for terrorist purposes will be caught. We think that is correct. We say that if someone knows that the people they are training are seeking that training for the purpose of terrorism and none the less continues knowingly to train them in order to enable them to do so, of course properly they should be caught. We think this change represents a far better protection than that set out in Amendment No. 83. If an academic provides training knowing that his pupil intends to use it for terrorist purposes, he should be caught by this offence, but not otherwise.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: It is a United Kingdom-wide jurisdiction. At the moment, as the noble Baroness knows, the position is slightly different because prosecutions have to have the assent of the Lord Advocate and the procurator fiscal. So, they would already have scrutiny of these matters. The position is slightly different in England and Wales. Therefore, we are making it clear that these prosecutions would have to have the assent of the Director of Public Prosecutions before they could be pursued. It is not proposed that these offences should be dealt with lightly; they are serious offences. We do not expect to have many of them. But when we do have them, we believe they are likely to be very important. Because of that importance, the scrutiny of the Director of Public Prosecutions is merited.
	I absolutely understand the Committee's anxiety in this regard. However, I was pleased to note that the Royal Society of Chemistry, which I think is the society to which the noble Baroness referred, has welcomed the changes that we have made. In a notice issued on 5 December, its president, Dr Simon Campbell, commented that Amendment No. 79,
	"will help to protect those engaged in legitimate scientific teaching and research and will avoid what would otherwise have been some very undesirable and unintended consequences".
	He went on to note that the Royal Society of Chemistry still had concerns about the Bill. However, that was before I announced the Government's intention to generalise the defences in Clause 1(7) and Clause 2(9). I am confident that the package we have now proposed should remove all concerns that the Bill will have a damaging impact on the academic community.
	I need to be very clear with your Lordships that that is our intent. We do not wish librarians and academics in any way to be disadvantaged or to discharge their duties in a significantly different way from what they do now. They do so honourably and to the credit of our country.
	I therefore urge the noble Lords who tabled Amendment No. 83 not to press it. I undertake, as I have indicated, to come back as quickly as we can with the drafts. I hope that when noble Lords have the opportunity to see how they fit together they will be satisfied that the assurances I have given hold good.

Lord Judd: As someone involved in university governance I very much welcome the whole approach that my noble friend has taken to the genuine concerns that exist. I think it would be unwise to pursue the amendments at this stage until we have heard what is being proposed in detail. But there is one other matter which I should like to raise, if I may, that I hope my noble friend will take into account when she comes back to the House with her propositions. She referred several times to the academic community. In that context she mentioned the fine work done by our universities, university teachers and university libraries. But many would argue that very important academic work is being done in further education and in adult education, not least in bodies such as the Workers' Educational Association, and certainly in good sixth forms. I think back to my own sixth-form education, which I value to this day because it provoked me into thinking. As we discuss these matters I see one particular master quoting what a terrorist was advocating and asking, "What is your reaction to that"?
	Therefore, when the Government come back to the House it will be very important to be quite clear what we mean by the academic community, and that as long as the work being done is bona fide academic work in a reputable bona fide educational academic institution, it will be covered by the legislation.

Lord Greaves: The noble Lord, Lord Judd, has just extremely eloquently made one of the two points that I was rising to make, so I will not repeat everything that he has said other than to comment that I have been extremely impressed by your Lordships' discussion, which reflected what I call high academia. That is not surprising, but the academic community extends to the grassroots. It extends beyond professional teachers and other professional academics, whether teaching at a high university or in a local community. My noble friend Lady Williams referred to people's professional capacity.
	Informal discussion groups and community groups who hold informal discussions constitute a rich tradition in the part of the country in which I live, and that tradition still survives today. Not everyone who leads those discussions or is involved in them is acting in a professional waged capacity; they are simply leading a discussion. As the noble Lord, Lord Judd, said, it is very important that the academic community is taken to be all-encompassing in that sense. It is important that the Government's amendments, which will be very welcome, are seen to apply to everybody, however high or low they may be in the great richness of academic discussion to which the Minister referred.
	My second point is that there is also a political dimension to this. I refer to what I do if I get a leaflet through my door from what I consider to be a thoroughly obnoxious organisation, which is likely to be a far-Right organisation—perhaps one of the organisations that operates on the far fringe beyond what might be called mainstream Fascist groups such as the BNP, that might well be taken to be promoting or condoning terrorist acts. My reaction is to collect all such leaflets from my neighbours and, if I do not get enough, to copy some myself and take them to the next meeting of my local political party, or perhaps to an organisation of which I am a member, Pendle United Against Fascism. In doing that I disseminate those leaflets but my purpose is a political one—to get people working to counter the stuff that is being put out in the community. This is all to do with intent and motivation. If the Government's amendments meet the point I for one will be very happy. However, I do not want to be put in court and threatened with seven years in gaol for trying to organise anti-Fascist activities and, as part of that, having distributed some Fascist or Nazi leaflets.
	The same applies to local mosques. If Islamic-type terrorist material is being disseminated outside a mosque, at least the mosque committee, and perhaps a wider group, will want to spread it among themselves if they are going to do what the Government are asking them to do and use their influence and authority within the mosque to counter that activity. You cannot counter arguments unless you know what is being put out. It goes beyond academia at a national level; it goes to the local discussion and teaching that the noble Lord, Lord Judd, and I are talking about, and it goes beyond that to political activity. We do not want a situation in which people whose intentions are of the best get caught because of the material that they have in their possession.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: I am minded to follow that which the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, and my noble friend Lord Greaves said a moment ago. There are local historical societies all over Wales. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Judd, has not studied Welsh history, but he may nevertheless have heard of Owain Glyndwr, described by Shakespeare as Owen Glendower. He could have been described as a terrorist; he burnt enough English castles in his day. His exploits and his governance of Wales over a period of 12 years, his setting up of the Welsh Parliament at Machynlleth are revered—one might almost say glorified—in Wales. When, some years ago, people started burning English homes in Wales, what did they call themselves? Meibion Glyndwr—the Sons of Glendower. That shows how the teaching of history may cause people to emulate what has happened in the past.
	I can give another example from Ireland. I was once engaged in representing a person charged with setting off a series of bomb attacks in this country, one of them in a hotel close to Buckingham Palace. To try to understand his point of view, I told him I had been reading the speeches of Daniel O'Connell—the great Irishman, as he was known in his day in the 1830s—whose street, O'Connell Street, is the main thoroughfare in Dublin. His response was, "That traitor! Read the speech of Robert Emmett on the gallows in 1797". Suppose that an academic talks about the Irish troubles of 1797 and Robert Emmett going to the gallows. That had an effect because what happened then fuelled the IRA.
	I agree with my noble friend Lord Greaves that we should not simply be talking about high flown academics; we should be developing a defence which can apply to anywhere where discussions of history or wider political happenings take place.

Lord Judd: I think that when we deal with issues that are fundamental to human freedom, clarity and precision is important. I hope our deliberations in Committee can help the Government to ensure that that precision is present, if it is not sufficiently present at the moment. In the end we will have to find some kind of definition which refers to bona fide educational institutions. I regard the kind of institutions to which the noble Lord referred as bona fide educational institutions, but am very worried about institutions that exist, not least in London, that claim the cloak of academic educational work but are in reality propaganda organisations.

Lord Morris of Aberavon: I wish to make a general point before we leave this clause. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, raised the place of Owain Glyndwr in history. Indeed, I would regard him as a patriot. Others might regard him as a terrorist—after all, the castles in north Wales were erected as English police stations to keep the Welsh down, and there was a great deal of merit in dealing with those intrusions into our society. But a serious point has been made regarding Meibion Glyndwr—the Sons of Glendower—who, unhappily and very regrettably, burned cottages as recently as in the past 15 years. Even the great and revered poet in the English language, Reverend RS Thomas, writing in English as recently as 1991 said words that might be interpreted as being sympathetic to what the Sons of Glendower were doing, and the remarks of the reverend cleric might be regarded as offensive to certain sections.
	My point is that in the last debate, and indeed earlier debates, we had difficulties with the poor drafting of this clause. I made it clear at Second Reading—it was not possible to go into any detail—that as the clause stood I was not with the Government. If they come back later, as they will be doing, to the subject of recklessness, I shall find it very difficult to support the Government on that.
	At Second Reading I indicated that I had tried to draft specimen directions to a jury and that I had not found it easy. If the Minister could persuade her learned colleagues to put in the Library a series of draft directions to juries—what juries are supposed to find—that might ease our task in discussing this clause. It is a modest request and it would help me in particular.

Lord Kingsland: Amendment No. 24 is the first amendment in a line of amendments that cover two issues. The first issue is intent in relation to the offences described in Clause 2 and the second is what subsection 3 adds to Clause 2 that is not already in Clause 1(1). Amendment No. 25A is a probing amendment to tease that out. I apologise to the Committee for the fact that our original amendment, Amendment No. 25, has been adjusted in Amendment No. 25A, which merely substitutes "terrorist publication" for "statement" in what would be Clause 2(1A)(a).
	I can deal briefly with the first amendment, which refers to Clause 2(1)(f). The subsection reads as follows:
	"A person commits an offence if he",
	and then there are five examples of how the offence can be committed. The sixth example, in paragraph (f), states,
	"has such a publication in his possession with a view to its becoming the subject of conduct falling within any of the paragraphs (a) to (e)".
	It is important to make it absolutely clear here that the reason an accused person has a publication in his possession is because he wishes subsequently to distribute it. Plainly, a number of people will have publications in their possession which have been distributed to them. In our view, therefore, "a view" should be substituted by "intend", to make it absolutely clear that the reason somebody has such a terrorist publication in their possession is because they wish subsequently to disseminate it. That is a purely drafting point.
	Amendment No. 25A, however, raises an important point of substance. Unlike Clause 1, there is no intent provision in Clause 2—that is, no intent provision with respect to the act of dissemination. Amendment No. 25A seeks to insert such an intent requirement. Indeed, it goes further than intent; it mimics Clause 1(1) by requiring that the act of disseminating a terrorist publication has either to be intended or to be committed recklessly—recklessly in the subjective sense of the word.
	It is important that the Bill reflects that the intention to disseminate involves two separate acts in order to be an offence under the Bill. First, there has to be an intention to perform the physical act of dissemination; and, secondly, there has to be an intention that the publication that is disseminated is a terrorist publication. Both intents have to be proved by the prosecution according to the usual standard, although they are not expressed separately but as a single intent—that is, the intent to disseminate a terrorist publication or to disseminate it recklessly. That is all I need to say about Amendment No. 25A. If the Committee accepts my Amendment No. 25A, the defences in Clause 2(8) and (9) become otiose.
	I now turn to the second issue these amendments raise, that of Clause 2(3). Amendment No. 27 simply seeks to eradicate the subsection altogether. But it is at this stage a probing amendment, because I have not yet heard the noble Baroness's reaction. Subsection (3) seeks to clarify what "matter" constitutes. What does "matter" mean and does the clause add anything to what is already in Clause 1(1)?
	"Matter" is defined in Clause 2(2), and it constitutes two ingredients—first, in Clause 2(2)(a),
	"a direct or indirect encouragement or other inducement to the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism";
	and, secondly, in Clause 2(2)(b),
	"information of assistance in the commission or preparation of such acts".
	I have no difficulty whatever in accepting that "matter" is necessary to incorporate what constitutes Clause 2(2)(b), but I am in some difficulty in understanding why the expression is necessary when we are dealing with Clause 2(2)(a).
	What is covered by "matter" in subsection (2)(a) that is not covered by subsection (5), which elaborates subsection (2)(b), other than a statement? What can matter be in subsection (2)(a) other than a statement? If I am right in reaching that conclusion, why do we need subsection (3) at all? All we need is for subsection (2)(a) to read, "a statement to which subsection (1) of Clause 1 applies". In sum, I submit that "matter" in Clause 2 can only mean either a statement, in which case it is covered by Clause 1(1) and no additional definition is needed, or constitute what is described in subsection (2) (b) as,
	"information of assistance in the commission or preparation of such acts".
	In tabling this probing amendment, I am not seeking to reduce the obligations on any potential disseminator of information. Nor am I seeking to reduce in any way the powers of the Government concerning dissemination. I am seeking to see whether a singularly opaque subsection—subsection (3)—can be expunged altogether from the Bill to achieve greater certainty, something for which we are all desperately seeking in this Committee. I beg to move.

Lord Eatwell: As the noble Baroness has acknowledged, she has placed the Committee at a considerable disadvantage. We are attempting to discuss a clause, the structure of which we do not yet know, as the noble Baroness has said that she will be amending it. I have listened carefully to what she has had to say. Perhaps I may quote exactly what she said on this issue. There would be a defence for an individual if he was able to show that he "did not endorse" and "did not intend". Was my noble friend indicating that she is going to incorporate intent into this clause? If I heard her correctly, she said that if someone could show that he did not intend an action, he would have an adequate defence in respect of the mischief expressed in Clause 2(1) and (2).
	I am not a lawyer so perhaps the issue that I do not understand is that of the burden of proof. Is my noble friend saying that the notion of intent will be a defence and that the defendant would have to prove that he did not intend, or, when she says that someone "did not endorse" and "did not intend", that it would be the task of the prosecution to demonstrate that the individual did have such an intent.
	On Monday, I pointed out the anomaly that intent already exists in Clause 2(9)(d) but does not appear in Clause 2(9)(b), on which we have been asked to focus our attention, but I am still puzzled, when she has used the words "did not intend" and has drawn our attention to the notion of intent in subsection (9)(d), that she appears to resist the concept of intent. Maybe we have all misunderstood the amendments she intends to bring forward and she does intend to introduce intent.

Lord Greaves: I decided to pay closer attention to the Bill than I have done so far, particularly to Clause 2, when I inadvertently sat in on the discussions held on Monday afternoon and heard what was being said about librarians and booksellers. I should declare an interest as a rather part-time book dealer in mainly political material. When I go home this weekend, I had better look through my stock to see whether anything might fall foul of the Bill. I believe that there is a serious problem here for bookshops and booksellers unless we get it right. To that end, I was very interested in what the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, had to say on the subject when he spoke on Monday.
	Like other noble Lords, I am encouraged by what the Minister has said about her proposals to make changes to the Bill and I have read carefully the proceedings for Monday in Hansard. I do not want to repeat the fundamental point about the need for book dealers and booksellers to be offered reasonable protection from inadvertently being caught by this legislation. However, I shall make a few points that the Government may want to look at in the light of their new proposals to be brought forward on Report. These points indicate what I shall be looking for in deciding whether their proposals meet what I consider to be reasonable.
	A lot of people who buy and sell books and other printed material are not the big booksellers. The bookselling chains are the main players in the market and I expect that they have a pretty good idea of what they are selling. They employ people to read their books and so forth. Local bookshops operate ordering services, usually very efficient ones. I can ring the bookshop in Colne, give the title I want and by the next morning, the shop will have it for me. That is a brilliant service, but I do not expect the staff to know what is in the book I am buying. Therefore the whole question of intent and not being implicated if you do not actually support what you are selling is very important.
	For the second-hand book trade, in which I am involved, it is even more important because you get large quantities of material; you get cartons and boxes full of stuff. In many cases, a second-hand book shop will put such material in a storeroom and it might be there for several years before it is sorted out, put on shelves, thrown away, given to Oxfam or whatever. That is the way in which the second-hand book trade works. It is not a high-powered organisation. Very often it is people operating out of their own attics or small shops, and to expect them to know and understand exactly what they are selling is not reasonable. So there is the question of stock but, in many cases, you cannot define it by the customers you are going to get because you have no idea who they will be for this material in the future. You just hope that one day you might find some.
	The second point I want to make relates to the question of customers. It is impossible to know all the people you are selling things to. From time to time I sell some fairly nasty stuff. Some of it is from the far left, some of it is from the far right—it is a small proportion of what I sell—and I have quite a lot of fascist material. I go out of my way to be careful about who I am selling it to. For example, the last time I sold a copy of Mein Kampf it was to a prominent Jewish member of the Liberal Democrats. I was fairly sure he would not be corrupted by what he would read.
	It is impossible to know all your customers. Even with people you have known for several years, who may specialise in collecting this material, you do not know what, underneath it all, their motivation might be. You try to filter out people you have suspicions about but it is very important that booksellers in this position should not have to vouch for the bona fides of all their customers and the effect such material might have on them.
	My third point concerns the definition of "booksellers". On Monday, the Minister said:
	"it will be a defence for a person charged with the offence to show that the publication did not express his views and that it was clear it did not",
	and,
	"that the person did not provide the material with the intention of it being of use to terrorists".
	That sounds very reassuring. I have listened to some of the legal arguments on Monday and today but I do not understand them all. There are some very eminent lawyers in the Committee and I shall have to leave those arguments to them.
	But when the Minister went on to say,
	"There can be no question but that that defence should be available to all legitimate librarians, academics and booksellers",
	I began to wonder what the word "legitimate" means in this sense. All sorts of people operate in the second-hand book trade—some on a very small scale, some on a medium scale and some on a big scale—so how do you become a "legitimate" book dealer? Certainly many people who deal nowadays—especially with eBay and so on—are not registered or members of associations.
	The Minister continued—this is what worries me most—that,
	"The defence would be restricted to them"—
	that is, librarians, academics and booksellers—
	"It would not be extended to others seeking to flout the law and encourage or facilitate terrorism".—[Official Report, 5/12/05; col. 465.]
	That is fine—I have no wish to extend it to such people—but what about all the people in between? Quite a lot of people do not come under the categories of academics, librarians and booksellers.
	A great deal of material consists of pamphlets, leaflets and posters—material that people in the trade describe as "ephemera"—which is bought and sold by many people. Some are booksellers and some trade in such material specifically and I am concerned that the defence may be restricted only to booksellers. Perhaps the Minister will look at that point.
	As I have said, because of the way in which material is bought—in job lots, through house clearances and so on—you have no idea what you are buying. Substantial amounts of material are bought at auction. You will go there, you will see three or four boxes full of stuff, containing two or three things that you want, and you will bid for that material. But goodness knows what is underneath it all. You might end up, quite inadvertently, as the owner of some pretty nasty stuff.
	All these matters need to be taken into consideration if the concerns that are beginning to be felt by booksellers, and by second-hand book dealers in particular, are to be alleviated. I look forward to studying carefully the wording of the Minister's amendments on Report and to an assurance that these people, who are all engaging in perfectly legitimate trade, will not be inadvertently caught by a Bill which is nothing to do with them whatever.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I thank all noble Lords who have spoken. I have listened carefully to the concerns that have been expressed, especially in relation to the issues arising out of the defences contained in Clause 2(9) in particular and the relationship that has to Clause 1. We covered to a large extent similar issues when debating other amendments earlier today, so I shall try to be brief.
	I signalled clearly the major changes that we have either accepted or proposed to make to the offences in Clauses 1 and 2. I shall not repeat those, and I thank Members of the Committee who have expressed gratitude for the changes that the Government intend to make. On the specific issue before us now, the offence in Clause 2 does not involve intent and, as I explained, that is deliberately so. The Government want to give law enforcement agencies the tools they need to tackle a particular mischief—namely, the dissemination of publications in context, which mean that they will either encourage terrorism or be of use to terrorists in practical ways. The Committee will not need reminding of the statements made during debate of the effect of disseminating such material, not least the effect of disseminating the al-Qaeda materials—manuals and matters of that sort—which have enabled and encouraged those who wished to commit acts of terror to do so.
	We originally drafted the offence to focus on preventing that mischief. Together with the related power in Clause 27, the measure provided the law enforcement agencies with a tool to do that. We considered the safeguards in relation to Clause 2, and our initial view was that they were sufficient and that terrorist publications had to be defined by reference to their context. There was a defence specifically for libraries in Clause 2(8), and prosecutions requiring the consent of the DPP. As I have said, we listened carefully and looked at the further defence provided in Clause 9, which originally had a very limited purview. We thought it right, having listened carefully to the Committee's concerns, to extend those defences generally to everyone. I shall just deal with the question of what "to everyone" means.
	During the debate that we had earlier, I concentrated particularly on the universities, booksellers and others about which noble Lords had spoken, but I made it clear that the provisions were to cover academics generally and those who teach and purvey information for philosophical and other debate. It is absolutely clear from those discussions, in response to the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, about his collection of materials, which he wished to disseminate to those who wished to fight fascism and terrorism, that they would not be caught by the provisions. Indeed, no matter how offensive we find the far-right statements of the BNP and others, as far as we are aware they still do not fall within the "terrorist" category to which these provisions primarily relate, although one has to look carefully at whether some of their publications do so. From the description given by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, however, it was clear that he was not going to discuss those issues for the purposes of generating or encouraging acts of terrorism, but quite the reverse. I think, therefore, that he can rest easy in his bed.
	Because of the concerns expressed in this House and elsewhere, we are proposing to expand the defence in Clause 2(9) so that it will apply to everyone. We are satisfied that this will still leave the offence in a workable form, but will also give those concerned about libraries, for example, the comfort they require. I need to emphasise, however, that there is still a mischief we have identified that needs to be addressed. I will explain why we are content with the new drafting we propose, but would rather not change the offence in the way suggested by these amendments.
	We suggest that the mischief of disseminating terrorist publications has two elements: the act of disseminating the publications, which we want to prevent and discourage, and the question of culpability on the part of the person doing the disseminating. We all understand that some people who disseminate publications that may encourage terrorism or be of use to terrorists should be regarded as culpable, but that others—for example, those whose jobs require them to disseminate such publications—should not be so regarded. That is a clear line that, I think, we all agree should be drawn.
	We are content that the current drafting, together with the power in Clause 27, allows us to target the act of disseminating terrorist publications, and satisfied that it allows the offence to capture those who are really culpable. Most importantly, we are also satisfied that it would not capture those who are not culpable, in the sense that they are not trying to do something we would all regard as wrong. Such people would avoid suffering under the offence itself, because they would avail themselves of the defence under Clause 2(9). Thus the offence, together with Clause 27, is still part of a package that can successfully prevent the unacceptable dissemination of terrorist publications, but will not capture those who should not be properly caught.
	My noble friend Lady Warwick of Undercliffe explained the concerns that have been expressed in connection with the interrelationship between paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) of Clause 2(9). I accept, as my noble friend Lord Eatwell said, that it is more difficult for Members of the Committee to consider the amendments while not having all the provisions before them. I will therefore do what I can to ensure that the position is clear.
	I remind the House that paragraphs (b) and (c) are to be read together. The reason for that is that in paragraph (b) provides that,
	"the publication to which the conduct related, so far as it contained matter by reference to which it was a terrorist publication by virtue of subsection (2)(a), neither expressed his views nor had his endorsement".
	The reason the "and" should then be included to refer to subsection (c) is that it provides that:
	"it was clear in all the circumstances that the publication, so far as it contained such matter, did not express his views and (apart from the possibility of his having been given and failed to comply with a notice under subsection (3) of that section) did not have his endorsement".
	That covers the situation. I will take librarians as an example.

Lord Eatwell: As chairman of the British Library, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, for her kind words about the character and work of the library. In addressing this amendment, I would first like to point out that it refers only to the British Library. By its terms, it excludes the other legal deposit libraries. Only the British Library has a legal obligation to collect everything, whereas the other legal deposit libraries have the right to collect material but do not have to. In other words, they can choose from copyrighted material what they collect. So this amendment refers only to the BL.
	However, I am in a dilemma because the British Library, as I pointed out at Second Reading, and its staff are entirely behind the Government in their attempt to attack the causes of terrorism and the encouragement of terrorism. We therefore do not seek any form of special treatment. I acknowledged at Second Reading that there might possibly be a rogue ill-intentioned individual working at the British Library who should be prosecuted under the terms of the Bill for disseminating material or whatever it might be—the offences listed in Clause 2(1). But, of course in what I said, once again the Government's inability to provide any coherent answer whatever to the questions that have been raised on the issue of intent—other than they want to ensure that those who are culpable should be caught, which surely is not an answer unless they can show that incorporating intend would allow those who are culpable to escape—leads us to table amendments which would exempt institutions like the British Library from the terms of the Bill.
	I am afraid that the issue of intent undermines this clause time and time again and is the reason I am sure that the noble Baroness has been so kind as to suppose that the activities of the British Library should be exempted from the terms of the Bill; but, as its chairman, I recognise that it should not.

Lord Goodhart: In moving Amendment No. 49, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 50, 52, 54, 59, 60, 67 and 69. This large group of amendments raises a number of different issues, the link being that all of them are of concern to Internet service providers. However, I shall take them together because it would be inappropriate to hold a separate discussion on each one. I regret to have to admit that I am not an expert in the field and wish that I had more knowledge than I do of these very detailed issues.
	Amendment No. 49 was suggested by Internet service providers, but having looked at it, I think that its consequences are in fact undesirable and I would not wish to encourage it. I therefore move on to Amendment No. 50, which is a paving provision for Amendment No. 69. If the previous group of amendments had been accepted, this would be unnecessary because the offence would arise only if there was a refusal to comply with the notice. But since the amendments were not accepted, Internet service providers may face a prosecution even without a notice being given.
	The London Internet Exchange Limited, LINX, and the Internet Service Providers Association drafted Amendments Nos. 50 and 69, and we have adopted them. Their purpose is to ensure that Internet service providers do not face a prosecution for material forwarded by them but which they knew nothing about. This covers three specific situations where the role of the Internet service provider role is as "a mere conduit", "the hosting of an information service", and where it provides "an Internet caching service". Those are all terms of art, the meanings of which are summarised in Amendment No. 69.
	I should say that this is no longer necessary in relation to Clause 1 since the introduction of the intention test means that an Internet service provider in one of the specified categories plainly will not have the relevant intention. But so long as there is no intention test in Clause 2, we still need to ensure that Internet service providers are not subject to prosecution for the activities listed in Amendment No. 69. I recognise that this may be a defence specific to Internet service providers under Clause 2(9), but once again they should not be forced to rely on raising a defence to what otherwise would be a criminal offence.
	In practice, Internet service providers cannot be expected to monitor these specified services and should not have to prove their innocence. These amendments would give effect to Regulations 17 to 19 of the Electronic Commerce (EC Directive) Regulations 2002 implementing the Electronic Commerce Directive (00/31/EC) of the European Communities. If the burden of proof is placed on a defendant to show that it falls within Regulations 17 to 19, Regulation 21 requires that it should be an evidential burden of proof only, and so far this fact has not been recognised in the Bill.
	The next sub-group comprises Amendments Nos. 52 and 54. I understand that LINX and the ISPA are satisfied by the alteration to two working days and I shall not press the point further. Amendment No. 57, however, is one of some significance. It relates to repeat statements; that is, statements which are in the same form or to the same effect as a statement which was originally the subject of a notice and has been removed after the service of the notice. It is easy for a statement which has been blocked following a notice under Clause 3(2) to reappear as a repeat statement, perhaps from a new website. If it goes through the same Internet service provider it is treated as being covered by the original notice. No new notice is needed and the Internet service provider's only way out is to prove a defence under subsections (5) or (7).
	I understand from LINX and the ISPA briefing that it is technologically impossible to monitor a network for a statement which may be "to the same effect". Further, imposing a requirement to carry out a general monitoring operation would be contrary to Article 15 of the directive. We therefore propose that subsections (4) and (5) should be deleted. We leave it to the Government to propose alternative solutions which recognise the serious practical problems that ISPs have in complying with subsections (4) and (5) as they now stand.
	Given the speed with which the legislation has been introduced, one of the problems that has arisen is that it was impossible to have adequate prior consultation. In the ordinary course of events, if the Government had produced and published a draft Bill, it would have been possible for the ISPs to make their representations to the Government before it was published as a Bill. I hope that the Government are now discussing these issues with the ISPs and that they will be prepared to revise Clause 3 on the basis of those discussions.
	Amendments Nos. 59 and 61 concern the actions which are needed by an Internet services provider to bring itself within the defences to prosecution provided by subsections (5) and (7). These are available only if the defendant has,
	"taken every step he reasonably could".
	We propose that that should be reduced to "reasonable steps". It may appear that there is no real difference, but there is. The difference is that as the Bill now stands a court would have to have evidence about all the steps which could possibly have been taken and then consider whether, in the case of any possible step, it was reasonable not to take it. Our formula would mean that the steps taken must be reviewed as a whole, and if in the circumstances these amount to "reasonable steps", it is not necessary to consider whether some other steps which were not taken might also have been reasonable. This would reduce the burden on the Internet service providers. It would not damage the effectiveness of the Bill because there is little doubt that people who are determined to do so will gain access to terrorist websites anyway.
	Amendment No. 60 deals with a problem created by subsection (6). This provides exemption from the monitoring of transmissions as a reasonable step if the Internet service provider does not exercise any selection or editorial control over the contents of what is transmitted. A number of Internet service providers exercise a limited degree of editorial control over their transmissions. Some systems make it possible to exercise partial control over transmissions in certain contexts—for instance, child pornography—but these involve automatic monitoring with little demand on human time within the ISP. I am not aware of any programs presently available which would identify and make it possible to exclude terrorist material, and it would be very difficult indeed to create one. Until that happens, it is unreasonable to exclude ISPs which exercise limited control over transmissions from the exemption under subsection (6).
	Finally, I have received draft amendments from BT. These raise concerns related to those of the ISPA—indeed, BT is a member of the ISPA—but which differ in detail because BT has somewhat different functions from the specialist Internet service providers. Unfortunately the amendments arrived late yesterday afternoon—too late to be tabled for debate today—but I am informing the Government now that they have been received and, if it appears necessary to do so, they may have to be debated at the Report stage. I apologise for going into some rather technical details but that is unavoidable at the Committee stage. I beg to move.

Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: I have a certain problem with the proposals. The interpolation of judicial authority relates to a notice that is declaratory that, as Clause 3(3)(a) says,
	"the statement or the article or record is unlawfully"—
	observe the word—
	"terrorism-related".
	My concern is whether it is appropriate that in a matter of this kind the court should be involved, and my concern becomes the greater when I turn to Amendment No. 68, which deals with the definition of an "appropriate judge". The amendment says that in Scotland that will be,
	"a sheriff or a judge of the Court of Session".
	In Scotland the Court of Session is a civil court; it is the High Court of Justiciary that is the criminal court. It might be said that what is involved here is properly a criminal matter and not a civil one and would therefore fall properly within the criminal jurisdiction, which in Scotland is exercised by the High Court of Justiciary. I hasten to add that that problem does not arise in England because the High Court has both criminal and civil jurisdiction.
	In parenthesis, I point out that my Amendment No. 125, which is related to the definition of "senior judge", where that appears in Clause 23(9), insofar as it concerns the extension of the period of detention of terrorist suspects, which is again a criminal and not a civil matter, is directed to the same point. Perhaps out of courtesy I can give that information to the Minister now. I also point out that even in this Bill, by contrast, forfeiture proceedings in Schedule 2 are declared by paragraph 7 to be civil proceedings and are therefore appropriately to be instituted in Scotland either in the Court of Session or in the sheriff court, which exercises a civil and a criminal jurisdiction.
	For those reasons, at this stage I would want to be convinced that it was appropriate in the first place to bring in any judicial authority to the issue of a notice. How it might be done otherwise is another matter; but if you have a declarator that something is a terrorism-related publication and thereafter there is the opportunity, it may be, for further proceedings if the notice is not obeyed, it might be difficult to argue that in fact—whatever the opinion of the judge—it was not something that was struck at by the Act.
	With regard to Amendment No. 68, I simply express concern that if there is to be an appropriate judge, as defined, it should be one who exercises criminal jurisdiction.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I want to deal with the issue of culture, which was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams. I apologise to her, as I had written "culture" in my notes, but I did not come to it. I take on board what she said about culture, and she is right. The majority of those who have had to deal with the Internet from the police side are dealing with the more pernicious element. That is important, and must be considered.
	Additionally, one must consider that those who will be tasked with terrorism issues will have that specialist knowledge too, so they will be looking at material in which the terrorist element, with regard to the way terrorism is promoted and propagated, is the nature of the material they will be seeking to remove. It is right that I say that, because it is not culture but specialisation. One of the things we have had to consider seriously is the effect that promulgation of terrorist material has had on the radicalisation of our youth and the impact it can have, very quickly, on those who are susceptible to it.
	So the fact that the specialists will be operating this is actually not a matter that should cause us great concern. I think it is a matter that should be of great reassurance. Many of us are not scandalised but upset by things which perhaps are not as familiar. For example, I had the dubious privilege of representing local authorities and parties involved in quite serious paedophilia cases. That means that one's eye is trained to the distinction which one must draw between inappropriate behaviour and serious behaviour that is culpable. One is therefore more attuned to looking at that which is seriously pernicious. I think that that is the nature of the work that the police will do.
	One also has to understand—and the noble Baroness is right about this too—that the Internet is a very powerful instrument. It is a powerful instrument for good and it is also a powerful instrument for evil. Making that decision is difficult. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, says, "Isn't it absolutely proper, therefore, to say that you should go to a judge on every occasion?". We come back to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, in an earlier amendment, that many Internet service providers have no idea about the content of the material that is put on their sites. Many of them have welcomed the fact that we have, in working with them, been able to identify the parts of the material that are unlawful for various purposes and are pernicious in nature. They have been anxious to remove inappropriate material from their sites and we have been able to express welcome and gratitude for that.
	The issue then is what to do about the notice. We have an opportunity to notify the Internet service providers of material that is inappropriate. They then have a choice to make the decision on whether to take it down. There has been no suggestion that the police or others in the areas in which we have worked have behaved inappropriately in the matters they have so notified. We do not believe that there will be a significant difference here either.
	It is a two-stage process because after the notice has been given the police will then have to consider the nature of the material, whether they wish to prosecute, and then produce material that will go before the judge. We think that that is the appropriate time. We do not think that it would be appropriate to bring the judge in at this stage for the reasons properly given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochbroom. The noble and learned Lord makes an important point. It is right to say that if a judge has adjudicated on the content of this notice which is declaratory, it would be very difficult for an individual thereafter to claim that they disagreed with the definition of that content.
	We think that the most appropriate system is the one that we are advancing. We do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, that, once someone has a notice, they suspend all independent assessment and then simply comply. There has been compliance on the notices that have been issued in other circumstances, but I certainly cannot say that that compliance has been 100 per cent. People have issued and made their own judgments about it. We allow for that eventuality here too.

Lord Addington: rose to ask Her Majesty's Government:
	What further proposals they have to deal with dyslexia throughout the educational and working lives of the population.
	My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have put their names down to speak in this short debate and declare a series of interest. I am dyslexic, a patron of the Adult Dyslexia Organisation and a vice-president of the British Dyslexia Association. I shall now explain why I tabled this Question at this time. The reasons are twofold. First, it is always useful to obtain guidance from the Government on how a disability is interpreted and viewed. We can do this by tabling Questions. Secondly, I believe that over the past few months and possibly for slightly longer sniping has been directed at dyslexia and the concept of dyslexia. Indeed, there has been a serious attack with regard to the validity of the condition. For example, it has been suggested that the number of prisoners with dyslexia has been greatly overestimated. That matter is probably best dealt with in the debate that will be initiated tomorrow by the noble Lord, Lord Hurd, to which I shall contribute. Therefore, I shall try not to address that issue today.
	A series of articles have appeared in various papers stating that people were faking dyslexia to gain extra time in exams and other concessions. I thought about that but was not moved to address that issue because exactly how much help would extra time in an exam be if you did not know the relevant answer? Perhaps it is thought that with an extra 15 minutes per question a person might deliver himself or herself into a zen-like state and receive enlightenment with regard to the answer to question four. However, if the aim of an exam is to elicit information from the person being examined and to test his ability to answer the questions, surely extra time will not help very much if you do not have the relevant information. I hope the Minister will concur that the extra time statement is silly and counter-productive. However, if you need extra help because you have a disability or a temporary impairment, you should receive extra time. That is fair enough.
	I was inspired to table this Question by a Channel 4 "Despatches" programme, "The Dyslexia Myth". The programme was shown back in September. I watched it purely to gain information as it turned out that I had not been reading the appropriate articles. I scanned through the TV listings and said to myself, "Oh, that looks interesting; I'll watch it". Within about 15 minutes I was so seething with rage that I bounced around the room. My wife sensibly turned the TV off, stuck a video in the recording machine and told me to go for a run.
	The basic synopsis of the programme was that dyslexia did not exist, we had all got it wrong, someone could teach everyone with dyslexia how to read—and that if we could all read, dyslexia did not exist. Professor Julian Elliot—or Joe Elliot as he likes to be known—had come up with this synopsis and was presenting it as fact. The programme backed him up with partial editing. My experience of dyslexia goes totally against that. I can read. I have read well enough to get through a degree course. The problem I have is predominantly with spelling. That is what I find most problematic and I have problems with short-term memory. The professor was talking about a different set of issues. He suggested a phonics-based course. Perhaps the Minister will say what the Government's intentions are in that regard. Apparently, if you teach everyone to read using a phonics system, all problems disappear. It has been estimated that 10 per cent of the population are dyslexic and that 4 per cent are severely dyslexic. Therefore, it would appear that if the phonics-based learning system were adopted, a great swathe of problems would be removed from the education system and the relevant money could be spent on something else. Will the Government confirm that they acknowledge the existence of dyslexia? Do they accept that it is a neurologically based system?
	The definition I have states that dyslexia is an ectopic condition, which means that cells migrate to the wrong place in the brain. As regards both the visual and auditory systems, cells are in the wrong place and misprogramme the relevant information. I shall not go into the rest of the definition as it is very complicated. It was a mistake to try to read it out. Basically, it is a neurological condition. It is real and it is a medical condition. If the Minister will confirm that, he will deal with many of the problems I have. Will he also confirm all the safeguards contained in legislation that has been passed in the nearly 19 years I have been in this House? I made my maiden speech on dyslexia nearly 19 years ago. Ever since then I have believed that governments of whatever political colour accept that dyslexia is a real problem and will enforce laws to protect people with dyslexia. I cannot see any reason why the Minister would not agree that dyslexia is a real problem. I am not so much concerned about myself but about people who are diagnosed with dyslexia late in life. Dyslexia is a disability but dyslexics are not stupid.
	In our society great weight is laid on the ability to read and write as a sign that someone is intelligent. Let us imagine a dyslexic going to a jobcentre to seek support and guidance and the person on the other side of the desk saying, "Dyslexia is not a problem. You can be taught to read. I saw how it was done on the telly the other night". Will the Minister make it absolutely crystal clear that the Government have not changed their mind about the fact that dyslexia is a disability and that the safeguards in, for example, the Disability Discrimination Act still apply? Will he confirm that any government official or person in authority would be breaking the law if he acted in the way that I have described? If the Minister can give that assurance tonight, this debate will achieve a great deal because we can tell people that such behaviour will not be tolerated. We are not prepared to allow people to suddenly say, "I have a new theory about dyslexia. The medical evidence about it is exaggerated". Today the nature of dyslexia is being questioned, who knows what will be the next disability to be questioned? Will it be Asperger's syndrome or dyspraxia? I could go on. Because someone says, "I can deal with this problem", it does not mean that the problem does not exist. If the Minister can give the assurance that I seek, we shall take a step forward and calm certain fears and the anger that arose following the TV programme. I discovered that I was not alone in reacting to the TV programme in the way that I did. A A Gill had a lovely rant in a restaurant review. He wrote:
	"This is a big red-letter day for me. Really. The big red letter might be a B or it might be a D. No matter—I'm cured. A huge weight . . . has been lifted by some very, very clever people who have decided that I'm not dyslexic any more. They didn't even have to see me. It didn't cost me a thing. They just made a documentary and decided that there's no such thing as dyslexia. Free at last, Lord—free at last".
	The article goes on. Noble Lords, who have their words recorded in probably one of the most famous newspapers of the English speaking language, can have a rant about the matter. However, people outside who are applying for jobs and dealing with this problem on a day-to-day basis do not have the defence of raising the matter in Parliament. They cannot call people to help them.
	I promised myself that I would speak briefly about this aspect of the matter and concentrate on the transitional period from school to the adult world and explain how difficult that transition is for many people with disabilities and ask what career guidance is available to them.
	I am running out of time as I speak; indeed, I have gone over it. I ask the Minister for one final assurance: that he will ensure that his department assures all others that they must bear in mind that this problem does not disappear with the classroom or formal situation. Suggesting to somebody that they go back and have extra tuition is not always the answer, because it may be asking them to go back to their own little version of purgatory, if not to hell.

Baroness Morris of Bolton: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Addington, on securing this short but important debate and, in doing so, declare to the House that I am mildly dyslexic. I do not have too much of a problem with reading. My problems are with writing, spelling and getting my opposites mixed up. Sometimes, when I stand up in your Lordships' House, I wonder quite what I have said.
	I will concentrate my remarks on Meares-Irlen syndrome, a form of perceptual distortion caused by an overactive optic nerve that affects some children and adults with dyslexia. My son was diagnosed with dyslexia at the age of 11, just after he had won an all-round scholarship at school. This was no special pleading by the middle-classes to get their children more time. He was lucky to be at a school which spotted that he had a problem, insisted that we do something about it and was able to offer him the support he needed.
	When he was 14, in a conversation about reading, he casually asked how people stopped the print moving around on the paper. It transpired that, for the whole time he had been reading, the words and spaces had formed patterns and coursed down the page. He went to a specialist optician in York and was prescribed bright turquoise lenses. His reading improved dramatically and he is now, at the age of 22, able to read perfectly well without his coloured lenses.
	On 1 November this year, I was returning to your Lordships' House from a family funeral in the north-west when I heard a fascinating interview on Radio 4's "The Learning Curve". Professor Arnold Wilkins, head of the Visual Perception Unit at the University of Essex, was talking about the very symptoms my son, Jonty, had suffered from. I discovered that Professor Wilkins and Dr Bruce Evans, of the Institute of Optometry, had referred to the symptoms of perceptual distortion and the associated benefit from colour as Meares-Irlen syndrome, in order to give credit to Olive Meares and Helen Irlen, who had made the initial discoveries. The distortion can be helped with coloured overlays, which are sheets of translucent or transparent coloured plastic that can be placed over the page of a book so as to colour the text beneath without interfering with its clarity, or with coloured lenses.
	Fascinating though the Radio 4 programme was, I was deeply concerned to discover that although a number of enlightened teachers are aware of Meares-Irlen, are able to test for it and refer pupils to specialist opticians, it is not recognised by the authorities. I was so concerned that, when I returned, I immediately looked Professor Wilkins up on the "The Learning Curve" website, e-mailed him, and subsequently met him with Dr Evans.
	There is no doubt that there is a high prevalence of visual stress among dyslexics. However, many suffers of visual stress are not dyslexic. I have seen with my own eyes how the use of colour can vastly improve reading and writing skills. So why, I ask, is it not recognised by the authorities? There have been some detractors in the past, but there is now a good deal of scientific evidence to support the existence of Meares-Irlen syndrome. The main stumbling block would seem to be that it does not fit neatly into the remit of one government department.
	In talks with the DfES, everything is fine when the discussion is about helping with reading or speeding up reading through the use of coloured overlays. When the discussion moves to coloured lenses, however, it becomes a health issue. For those children who are helped with colour, lenses are more practical than overlays, because they can be used for work with computers, and help with reading from blackboards and whiteboards. Incidentally, whiteboards are themselves causing visual stress, because the light shines straight back into the children's eyes.
	The Department for Health, on the other hand, thinks it is a DfES problem, because it involves difficulty with reading, although coloured filters also help with eye strain and headaches. This leaves parents with no option but to buy the lenses themselves. If ever there was a case for joined-up government, this is it.
	Having spoken to Arnold Wilkins and Bruce Evans, read the masses of papers, watched a video and read Arnold Wilkins' book Reading Through Colour, I am left in no doubt that this is an issue which has to be addressed. We are all only too familiar with the problems caused in later life by learning disabilities. It will probably not surprise anybody in this House to know that it was found that many prison inmates, when they were tested, would have benefited hugely from coloured overlays or lenses.
	I am sure the Minister would find that the treatment of visual stress with special filters would be cost-effective. I wonder, therefore, whether he would consider a properly costed and evaluated regional trial of filters to assess the practical aspects of provision.
	If the Minister is in any doubt, I would like to end by telling Sam's story, from Reading Through Colour:
	"'My name is Sam———. I am now 14 years and 4 months old. This is my story. 'All my life I have been unable to see clear text. 'This is normal for me. 'I thought that everybody else saw the same thing as me. 'I had to memorise everything I wrote instead of going back and re-reading it. 'This was because I couldn't read my writing either. 'Nobody asked me if I had trouble reading or writing. 'I was kept in at playtimes and told to do lines. 'The older I got the harder writing became because I had to write more and more. 'I could not cope with the amount of writing. 'I felt let down and stupid because I couldn't do all the work that everyone else was doing so easily. 'I gave up. I didn't know how to do the things that other people could do. I didn't know why. 'I was always exhausted when I came home from school. 'I often had headaches. 'This kept on happening to me until I had an eye exam that changed my life. 'I was due for an eye examination and went to see a new optician. 'My mum told him that I was dyslexic and the optician offered a coloured overlay test. 'That test changed my life. 'I would never be the same again. 'The coloured overlay test came out positive!!! 'It was the most important moment of my life. 'For the first time in my life I could see text clear as glass. 'I was astounded. 'I looked at the page stunned. 'All I could think to say was 'How did it do that?'. 'It was not easy to use the overlays because they made my headaches worse. 'Once I got my lenses the headaches disappeared. 'My life has been a lot easier because of them. 'Now my mum cannot stop me reading. 'I have become addicted to it. 'From being a person who refused to read I now plead with mum to take me to the library every weekend. 'I now feel happier and my self-confidence has increased.".

Baroness Northover: My Lords, I am here at the express instruction of my elder son. I thank my noble friend Lord Addington for this debate and congratulate him on overcoming the difficulties of his own dyslexia.
	I sometimes think that it is a historical accident that can put dyslexics at a disadvantage today. Prior to universal education, I have no doubt that my strong and determined son would have flourished. Looking to a possibly very high-tech future, will his descendants need to plough through books, fill in forms, and read instructions? Maybe not.
	I remember extremely well trying to help my son Tom to read. His primary school focused on "look and say", but Tom looked not at the word but at the ceiling to figure it out. Building complex Lego machines, solving spatial problems, or whatever, was easy. Recognising a word from one page to another was something else entirely.
	Tom is my eldest child. I later found how differently his younger brother and sister learnt to read, which is why I know that dyslexia exists. But I had no experience to tell me that what Tom was doing was unusual. I could not remember how I learnt to read. I thought that, like riding a bike, he must eventually get it, but that "getting it" must somehow be counterintuitive. By the time Tom was six, 10 years ago, he had drawn up detailed plans for his escape from his primary school. He was going to dig a tunnel in the playground and escape into the churchyard.
	At the same time I learnt that each day his teacher was tearing up his work and throwing it at him. Now in many ways I owe that teacher quite a debt. Tom wanted me to mention her here, and I will. I will not name her, though we came to call her "the witch". I later learnt that she would hit him when he got things wrong. I knew that he was no angel, but tearing up his work did not seem quite right and I went into the school. The head heard that I had come in, pulled Tom out to assess him, and called me in. I heard the word "dyslexia" and as she said it, things began to fall into place.
	The head told me that it would probably take a number of years to get Tom statemented in Haringey, where we lived, and that when she did get help for him it would probably not be from a specialist. In his interest, she said, would we consider moving him to a private sector school with a dyslexia unit? She introduced me to the local dyslexia association, which was at that time struggling to get the child of a single mother from Tottenham into a special school, with Haringey Council tripping them up at every stage—including asking that the long-absent father fill in the forms. I saw that, chickened out, and looked at private schools. Highgate turned up its nose—it did not want to know about Tom, although later its junior school took a more enlightened view in relation to other dyslexic kids, although far less that its senior school still does.
	Tom was accepted at Mill Hill. There, a guardian angel appeared, although I am not sure that Tom saw her quite that way, because she gave him and me huge amounts of homework throughout the term and even throughout the holidays. But she took him back to square one and slowly, using phonics, taught him what I thought was impossible—to read and write. When Tom was about nine he gave me a letter he had written in school. I had been given letters by the other two schools by that stage. He pointed out that this was the first letter that he had written from beginning to end. When he had tried to write one at his infants' school, he would start, but not recognise the next day what he had written, or his teacher would tear it up and he would endlessly start again.
	Things have not been easy, even in a school which was supposed to be fully informed and alert to the way that dyslexics learn. Some teachers insisted on Tom laboriously copying things out of books and then had no understanding of him when he would skip or repeat chunks without realising it. Another—a science teacher—noted that he did not finish writing up his work and was therefore always behind. She took him aside at the end of lessons and got him to dictate to her what he wished to write. She wrote it down for him so that the lesson was complete—his words but her assistance, and my gratitude.
	Then there was the National Listening Library—now Listening Books. At first, we received enormous tapes to go into an enormous machine, but it was a joy. Tom would lie in bed, transfixed, as someone read him a story that he might never be able to read. Over time, the tapes became ones that you could play in a normal machine or in the car. He listened to everything, and still does. I remember him, at the age of seven or so, listening to Lorna Doone. I switched off the tape from time to time to explain the language, but I did not need to. He was John Ridd, and the language in no way impeded his understanding. If I wanted silence amid the general commotion of home, putting on a story tape instantly immobilised all the kids.
	Tom has now done his GCSEs and is in the first year of the sixth form. He seems to be on course for university, but I never count chickens. Exams are very unpredictable things. I look at one of Tom's GCSE results in history, where he got an A* in one paper and a C in the other, and I am as certain as I can be that something went very wrong. What did he misread so that probably, for a whole section of that paper, they could give him no marks at all?
	Tom has become absolutely determined as he has battled through. He would like to be another Richard Branson, and that would certainly be very nice. He promises to buy me a villa in France if he becomes one. Tom has been labouring through school as though he had a great weight to pull behind him—something that his brother and sister do not have to do. But he has been helped, supported, chivvied and encouraged. What of kids who are not?
	Attitudes towards dyslexia in schools, government and local authorities seem to have changed beyond all measure in the past 10 years. But I want to know the reality. I want to know what the Government are now doing to prioritise and fund specialist teacher training and, above all, specialist support in schools. That was the problem a decade ago before local education authorities had the responsibility properly to look after dyslexic kids. I hear that in some areas the situation is little better.
	In what proportion of schools is there routine assessment of children before the age of five and before dyslexia starts to dent their confidence so that any problems can be picked up? And what happens when they are identified? The Dyslexia Institute reports that in a recent TES poll 90 per cent of teachers think that, where possible—and I agree—dyslexic pupils should remain in the mainstream, but only 12 per cent think that they have the resources and training to support them there.
	It is not simply a matter of having a specialist teacher. There has to be a far wider understanding among all teachers of the problems that children may face in reading and writing. Catching the problem early is obviously crucial. I hate to think what would have happened had we not been able to get Tom the assistance that he needed as he planned his infant escapes.
	I hope that the Government are now beginning to take in hand the needs of other kids like Tom because, in my experience, dyslexia can make a person or break him. We, as a society, have to ensure that what Tom describes as his "learning difference" can be the making and not the breaking of those whose brains may simply be wired differently.

Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend Lord Addington for introducing what has so far been a very inspiring debate. Tom, David, Sam Jonty, all noble Lords who have spoken this evening and I need no convincing that dyslexia is real, and it manifests itself through a spectrum of effects varying in severity from mild to very serious. Those with the condition process information differently from the rest of us and we need to take that into account at the earliest possible stage of their education to enable them to fulfil their full potential. From a conversation with Tom, the son of my noble friend Lady Northover, I am aware that, even when dyslexia is correctly diagnosed and appropriate interventions put in place, dyslexic pupils often have to work very hard indeed to compensate for their condition in the world of school and work. The one benefit therefore, according to him, is that you become used to hard work, and that is not a bad thing.
	The sad fact, however, is that, even though it is a fairly common condition, with 10 per cent of the population showing it to some degree, often the condition goes undiagnosed for far too long. The child therefore underachieves and develops low self-esteem. That can lead to disruptive behaviour or even exclusion from school and, in the worst case scenario, to offending behaviour. We know that dyslexics are up to four times more likely to be in prison or on probation than non-dyslexics. Figures from the DfES of June this year show that 64 per cent of children permanently excluded from school have special needs and at least 80 per cent of those—that is, about 5,000 children—have dyslexia. NFER has calculated that it costs almost £50 million to support these children outside the school system each year. Would it not be better to address their needs early instead of having to spend that money on picking up the pieces?
	Their low achievement in basic skills, coupled with low self-esteem, makes it hard for many children to develop their strengths and to be successful later in the workplace. However, we know that many of them are extremely creative and can be highly successful entrepreneurs.
	So what can we do about it? First, we need to fund the correct and early diagnosis of dyslexia in primary and even nursery schools. Teachers should be trained to recognise the problem and teach the child in a different way. It is a learning difference. They also need to be able to recognise where more expert intervention than they are able to provide is needed, and know where to find it.
	Secondly, we need to ensure that all those who struggle with literacy receive appropriate support from trained people. Synthetic phonics is not a magic bullet but it is a valuable technique among a spectrum of techniques. The key is to assess the learning style of the child and to enable him to learn in the way that is best for him. That may vary from child to child, which is why I am so wary about the imposition from on high by the Secretary of State of any single system of teaching reading. That undermines the teacher's professional judgment and understanding of the child.
	Thirdly, we need to support the development of appropriate technologies, such as voice recognition, as the child's learning in other subjects should not be held up by his inability to read very well. We need to stop trapping learners at the level of their disability by insisting on them mastering the basics before they can learn anything else. If a child manages to make it to university, things improve a lot because he can fund the necessary technology through the disabled student's allowance. But why do we have to wait until a talented and persistent few get that far? We need to do it for the many, not just for the few.
	Sadly, schools appear to avoid diagnosing dyslexia for fear of the financial implications of support. That indicates to me that the funding should follow the child as of right and not impose on the school's always-stretched budget. However, failing to diagnose and deal with the problem is far costlier to society as a whole in terms of failed education and the cost of managing crime. Incidentally, it has been shown that developing a dyslexia-friendly school benefits all learners and not just those with the condition.
	Initial teacher training needs to be changed urgently if Every Child Matters is to be seen as more than just rhetoric. The absence of sufficient dyslexia and SEN tuition within ITT has been a cause for concern for many years. Often, parents will choose to send their children to independent specialist schools to get the smaller class sizes and specialist teaching that can be found there. While there are benefits in this, the child then loses out on the other benefits of inclusion in the mainstream. In a recent TES poll, 90 per cent of teachers thought that children with dyslexia should be taught in the mainstream, but only 12 per cent felt that they had the resources and training to do it properly. But it does not have to be like this, if the Government will only invest a modest amount in the short term in order to achieve long-term benefits and, indeed, savings.
	The British Dyslexia Association has accredited courses for professionals working in the field of dyslexia and other specific learning difficulties. However, 65 per cent of teachers attending those courses have to fund themselves, and we do not know how many more are put off taking the courses at all because of the cost. The Dyslexia Institute estimates that with an investment of £27 million in training and teaching for primary schools, no child would be left behind and many problems would be avoided. When you consider the £50 million savings on children who are excluded, which I mentioned earlier, and the Dyslexia Institute's estimate that undiagnosed dyslexia costs the economy £1 billion every year, let alone the costs that could be avoided in the prison system, it seems amazing that the Government are not jumping at the chance of spending a tiny proportion of that—£27 million—as a good investment. Perhaps Minster would like to explain why the Government would rather spend £1.6 billion on the Skills for Life Programme of adult literacy and numeracy in the four years to 2006, rather than invest in getting it right when children are young. It strikes me as a good sound commercial investment to make, even putting aside all the frustration and heartache caused to sufferers and their families when the problem goes undiagnosed and untreated, and it would be cruel to ignore the effects of that.
	Finally, I am attracted by the social model of disability that recognises that the problem is created by the expectations of the world rather than any feature of the individual. A person in a wheelchair is not trapped at the bottom of the stairs by his inability to walk up them, but by the existence of the stairs themselves. Similarly, a dyslexic person is not prevented from succeeding by his dyslexia, but by the requirement to learn to read in a particular way before he can succeed at other aspects of education for which he may have a great facility. Most people with this condition can learn to read and function perfectly well if they are taught in the appropriate way and given appropriate technological help. We have seen many inspiring examples of that. We need to move urgently to investment in more inclusive learning and equal opportunities. That is what it is about. Equal opportunities for children with this difference will enable more people with dyslexia to succeed.

Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Addington for asking this Question this evening. It has been a wonderful debate, albeit short, which will focus minds on the further action needed to make equal citizenship a reality for everyone. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, was right to point out that some negative attitudes have emerged recently. I have to confess that, with regard to exams, I have heard pupils and parents snipe, in the noble Lord's word, about the so-called advantages of being dyslexic. That is a great pity, and I hope that we have helped to nip it in the bud tonight.
	I have to confess that I did not know much about dyslexia until I was well briefed by the Dyslexia Institute and the Disability Rights Commission for this evening's debate. In some ways, I feel rather superfluous to this debate because I cannot speak with the depth of experience and passion of other noble Lords. I am grateful to them for educating me and making me realise how lucky I, my husband and my children are that we do not have this difficulty and lifelong challenge.
	I realised that dyslexia was quite common, but I had not realised that it affects so many people: 10 per cent of the population, and some 400,000 children in primary school alone. If dyslexia is not identified and supported early, children become disaffected and frustrated, and are at risk of school and employment failure. There is evidence from Ofsted, the Audit Commission and other independent reports that the system is not identifying or supporting many children with dyslexia. Children are falling between the cracks of mainstream education and the cumbersome special needs system. Wave 3 of the National Primary Strategy has not succeeded for many children with specific learning difficulties.
	Inclusion will not work if such children are not supported. As the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, said, in a recent TES poll 90 per cent of class teachers thought that children with dyslexia should be taught in the mainstream, but only 12 per cent thought that they had the resources and training to do so. Therefore, too many children arrive in the first year of secondary education without the literary skills to access the curriculum, and so they are much more likely to be excluded from school. There are too few teachers trained to identify and support dyslexic children. The Government do not prioritise or fund specialist teacher training. Indeed, 65 per cent of teachers on our post-graduate diploma course on dyslexia and literacy are self-funded. There are no standards or framework for provision, resulting in a postcode lottery. Dyslexia is the most common issue to go before the tribunal.
	To assist children who have dyslexia, schools and local authorities are expected to have regard to the special educational needs code of practice, which was published in November 2001. It gives practical advice on carrying out statutory duties to identify, assess and make suitable provision for children with SEN. However, the precise arrangements for screening and assessment are for local determination. Under the National Primary Strategy, the Department for Education and Skills produced an extensive range of specific guidance material for schools on evidence-based interventions for children with significant literacy and numeracy difficulties. A three-way model of intervention was developed that was designed to identify and support children experiencing difficulty in literacy and/or mathematics. A good many of them are likely to fall somewhere on the dyslexia spectrum.
	Our now new Leader of the Conservative Party, David Cameron MP, in his former role as Shadow Secretary of State for Education recently called on the Government to deliver on their pre-election promises and launch a full review of SEN facilities and provision in England and Wales. Special educational needs can take many forms, including dyslexia, behavioural problems or a mental or physical disability. Labour's mini-manifesto promised a national audit of special school provision to give better comparative information to local authorities, head teachers and school governors as they plan future special needs provision to meet their local needs. That just has not happened.
	Are there solutions? Yes, there are, including what David Cameron has called for. But early intervention also begins with a good systematic phonics programme for the teaching of reading. We very much welcome the interim report from Jim Rose. I am very proud of my colleague, Nick Gibb MP, who has been so tenacious in pushing for the profile of phonics to be raised within the school curriculum. Maybe it is not the panacea for all, but we are glad that the report contains so much positive information for synthetic phonics.
	There needs to be a whole school awareness programme about dyslexia; good leadership and school management; and the training of one learning support assistant in each primary school on a level 3 course in dyslexia and literacy, so that they can support those who need extra help. One should remember that dyslexia is more than difficulties in reading. As we have heard this evening, short-term memory problems, information processing and difficulties with organisation and maths are also signs.
	What about adults and that transitional phase referred to this evening by the noble Lord, Lord Addington? Adults with dyslexia are over-represented in all areas of disadvantage. The majority were not identified at school and have not received appropriate support. The Government estimate that poor skills can cost the economy £10 billion each year. The Dyslexia Institute estimates that undiagnosed dyslexia costs the economy around £1 billion per annum. Without literacy skills and other issues related to dyslexia, there are real difficulties with employment. Dyslexics are over-represented in the offending population—something which we will be referring to in tomorrow's debate on prison education. That is not because they have a greater propensity to crime, but due to lack of early support. Recent research shows that 20 per cent of the prison population has hidden disabilities—twice as many as we would expect in the average population. It costs £186 million to keep the extra 10 per cent of dyslexic prisoners in the secure estate. With early intervention, this is preventable. Adults with dyslexia often have very low self-esteem—as we have heard this evening particularly from the noble Lord, Lord Laird—due to their life experiences. Once their dyslexia is recognised, they often need counselling as well as identification and teaching help.
	There are solutions. The new tendering process for prison and probation education must ensure that enough funding is available for additional learning support for dyslexic prisoners. Staff in offender education need appropriate skills and training. Staff in further education and adult and community learning must be trained to be aware of the warning signs of a specific learning difficulty and be able to offer good resources and teaching. Government staff dealing with the long-term unemployed must ensure that they are all screened, appropriately taught and helped into suitable employment. Employers must take heed of their responsibilities under the Disability Discrimination Act and consultancy should be available for employers and staff. Work-based learning providers need to have staff trained to identify and support. The role of the voluntary sector should be enhanced in supporting these vulnerable learners. In conclusion, some key actions need to be taken by government to address continuing discrimination against and exclusion of people with dyslexia.
	I want to touch on an issue other noble Lords have raised. I refer to the focus on "the right to read". For some 1 million people with severe dyslexia the right to read is all too often a right denied, and the time has come for action. Without equal access to the same books and published materials as everyone else, people with dyslexia will continue to experience educational, social and workplace exclusion. Solutions are at hand and action is now needed.
	I hope that the Minister will have heard from all who have spoken in the debate of the urgency for more action and taken on board the issue raised by my noble friend Lady Morris of Bolton regarding the use of colour, which can vastly improve reading and writing skills—again something I had not realised until this evening's debate.

Lord Adonis: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and almost every other speaker in this debate has spoken with great personal or family knowledge and commitment on the important issue of dyslexia. We have therefore had both a highly informed and, at times, extremely passionate discussion on the subject. In many ways, I think that the most passionate contribution came from the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, about Meares-Irlen. I listened very carefully to what she said and I think that my best response to her is to say that I will study her remarks with care; I will take them up with my colleagues in the Department of Health; I will write to her fully; and I will happily arrange a meeting either with me or with an appropriate Minister to discuss the issue more fully.
	The noble Lord, Lord Addington, expressed serious concern about the controversy raised about the nature of dyslexia, including whether it exists at all, following the recent Channel 4 "Dispatches" programme. The very title of that programme, "The Dyslexia Myth", gave rise to understandable anxiety that children's needs might no longer be recognised and supported. As the noble Lord said, it is important that we reassure parents that that is not the case.
	I begin by stating clearly and categorically the Government's view that dyslexia is a complex neurological condition and that people with dyslexia need proper support to develop the reading, writing and comprehension skills essential to succeeding in school, in life and in work. An authoritative report on dyslexia by the British Psychological Society in 1999 contained a helpful definition that many felt allowed professionals to move on from unproductive arguments of the kind that have surfaced again in recent months. The society defined dyslexia in the following terms:
	"Dyslexia is evident when accurate fluent word reading and or spelling develops incompletely or with great difficulty. This focuses on literacy learning at the 'word level' and implies that the problem is severe and persistent despite appropriate learning opportunities. It provides the basis for a staged process of assessment through teaching".
	The Government accept that definition and it is precisely such a staged process that we have introduced to our primary school national strategy. I will return to that later, as it is crucial to our policy for addressing dyslexia, but let me first address the issue of statutory support for those with serious learning difficulties, including dyslexia, throughout the age range. I will then address wider provision for adults and, finally, wider provision for children.
	Statutory support for all children with special educational needs, including those with dyslexia, is provided by the special educational needs statutory framework. Any child who is not making adequate progress should have their needs identified and addressed throughout the graduated response encompassing School Action, School Action Plus and, where the child's needs are over and above what is normally available in schools, through a statement of special educational needs. The special educational needs code of practice defines adequate progress in the number of ways. For instance, it may be progress that closes the attainment gap between the pupil and the pupil's peers; the progress necessary to prevent the attainment gap growing wider; or, in cases where pupils are, by the nature of their incapacity, on an entirely different learning trajectory from their peers, the progress that matches or betters their previous rate of progress.
	Many adults with dyslexia will meet the Disability Discrimination Act definition of a disabled person and will therefore be covered by the Act. The Act aims to protect disabled people against discrimination in a wide range of areas, including employment. Last October, we removed the exemption for small employers and brought a whole range of previously excluded occupations within the scope of the Act's employment provisions. Those changes brought 1 million employers and 7 million more jobs within the scope of the DDA.
	Recent research suggests that there has been a reduction in negative attitudes towards the employment of disabled people and an increase in making adjustments for disabled people, but there is still work to be done. We have just launched a further campaign to raise awareness among small businesses, in particular, of their duties under the DDA. That campaign builds on the findings of our earlier research, and will benefit many adults with dyslexia.
	That takes me to the wider issue of provision for adults, so powerfully set out by the noble Lord, Lord Laird. To support older learners, the DfES Skills for Life unit last year produced a framework for understanding dyslexia as part of the Government's national strategy for improving adult literacy and numeracy skills. That framework provides general information on the nature of dyslexia; a review of theories about dyslexia; and an overview of approaches and programmes used by specialists to support dyslexic learners.
	The framework gives a good deal of practical guidance on, for example, programmes used by specialists, including the Fast Forward language programme, the Arrow programme and others. It was produced by the Learning and Skills Development Agency, working with a consortium of dyslexia organisations, including the Dyslexia Institute, as part of a project to develop provision for adult teaching and learning and for English speakers of another language. Those programmes have been designed to meet needs across a range of settings in further education and adult and community settings, with additional focus on offender and workplace settings.
	In this context, we recognise that a high proportion of offenders suffer from dyslexia and severe literacy difficulties, as has been mentioned by several noble Lords. We have significantly increased resources for prison and young offender institution education. The budget for that has risen from £57 million to £100 million since 1991 and that extra provision is focused especially on essential skills. I am glad that the House will have the opportunity to debate prison education further tomorrow, when my noble friend Lady Scotland will yet again be performing in the House.
	The third area is support for children. The starting point, beyond the crucial work of parents, is the school and its approach to the teaching of literacy. Our primary national strategy advocates systematic and targeted intervention for any child who experiences reading difficulties. It is based on the premise that for the majority of pupils reading difficulties are most effectively tackled by a whole school approach that emphasises a systematic and planned curriculum response to diverse needs and secures three waves of provision, as set out by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe: first, rigorous and systematic attention to the teaching of phonics and spelling rules; secondly, further literacy support for those falling behind; and, thirdly, differentiated curriculum provision with more personalised interventions for small groups or individuals who are still experiencing difficulties, which could include children with dyslexia.
	In that third wave, independent research by Greg Brooks, entitled What Works for Children with Literacy Difficulties?, recommends intervention that has evidence of impact. The primary national strategy uses that research as the basis for its list of interventions. Reading intervention, such as the Cumbrian programme that featured in the Channel 4 programme, is included in the Brooks research. We therefore recommend its use. It is, however, for local authorities and schools to decide which approaches they use in their local area and other programmes have been found to have a comparable effect. We encourage parents of dyslexic children to discuss with their schools the approaches used in their area and what is best for their children.
	Specifically on dyslexia, the primary national strategy has recently updated its advice to teachers in its publication Learning and Teaching for Dyslexic Children, which is closely linked to advice from the British Dyslexia Association and is available as a CD-ROM. It advocates an early intervention approach, using teacher assessment of the strengths and learning styles of individual children, identified in the context of the classroom and the curriculum. A learner's needs can be met through adapting learning objectives, providing better ways of reading and assessing the written work—for example, through ICT or even, as appropriate, a scribe—and adapting teaching styles to the needs of the individual pupil, including visual, oral and touch methods.
	The needs of children with significant literacy difficulties are also being addressed through the Rose review. Jim Rose has looked at best practice in the early teaching of reading, which includes a focus on phonics but is not exclusively limited to phonics. As the House knows, Mr Rose's interim report was published last week and it focused particularly on teaching methods in mainstream settings. However, the range of provision that will best support children with significant literacy difficulties, including dyslexia, is a specific element of Mr Rose's remit. As he states in his interim report, two key aspects of successful additional support are to ensure that,
	"it is compatible with mainstream practice, irrespective of whether it is taught in regular class settings or elsewhere",
	and that, if done separately,
	"the gains made by children are sustained once they return to mainstream work".
	Jim Rose will consider and report on the issue more fully in his final report, expected early next year.
	One programme of additional support that we are taking forward is reading recovery. Through our "Every Child a Reader" project, the Department for Education and Skills, in partnership with the KPMG Foundation and a coalition of charitable and corporate funders, is supporting a £10 million three-year project that will bring tailored literacy support to more than 4,000 children who experience significant difficulties in literacy, through the provision of trained reading-recovery teachers. Not only is the project designed to improve the life chances of those 4,000 children but it will explore the potential for reading recovery teachers to support wider literacy teaching within a school and test out a range of different delivery models for the provision of intensive support to those children who need additional help in literacy.
	Reading recovery has been found to be particularly successful with vulnerable groups, including, for example, low-attaining children, some of whom will have dyslexia. We see reading intervention programmes such as the Cumbrian approach as complementary to reading recovery and we will look at how we can take them forward further after Jim Rose has reported finally.
	Vital to ensuring the best possible provision for children with dyslexia is the proper training of teachers, not only in teaching reading to those with special needs but also in effectively screening for those needs as early as possible. The Training and Development Agency for Schools is taking steps to help teachers, particularly newly qualified teachers, to be better prepared to support the full range of SEN and disabilities. In particular, it is developing specialist SEN elements in initial teacher training, which involves the development of modular pilot programmes within teacher education in respect of pupils with the full range of SEN and disabilities.
	The Training and Development Agency also offers additional placements in special schools, increasing from one to four weeks the amount of time primary and secondary trainees on a three-year or four-year teacher education programme spend in special schools or settings. The TDA is also producing guidance materials and exemplars of good practice for NQTs and is strengthening SEN expertise among existing teachers.
	However, we believe that we can and should do more. In recent months, the Secretary of State, I, and our officials have met leading voluntary sector organisations, which do outstanding work with people with dyslexia—the Dyslexia Institute, the British Dyslexia Association, Xtraordinary People and the Helen Arkell Centre. We have heard from them where they think that we should best focus additional efforts. With Kate Griggs from Xtraordinary People, I recently visited Lyndhurst Primary School in Southwark and saw at first hand its magnificent work on improving outcomes for children with dyslexia and complex processing and reading difficulties. Lyndhurst School is part of a cluster of schools and houses a specially resourced unit for those with severe reading difficulties—the sort of unit mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Northover. As part of this, the school has expert staff who can work with children with complex reading difficulties, including those with dyslexia as well as those struggling more generally with literacy. It offers access to specialist therapies, in particular speech and language therapy and occupational therapy, and provides an outreach service for other schools in Southwark.
	This model and the dyslexia-friendly schools model developed by the BDA are precisely the kind of initiatives that we would like to see extended more widely. I have been in discussions with stakeholders about how we could extend such provision. Early next year I hope to outline firm proposals. Finally, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this debate and for their support in the mission, which we all share, to give people with dyslexia the best possible opportunities to achieve their full potential.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I am grateful to the noble Lord for tabling Amendments Nos. 62 and 64. Like Amendments Nos. 59 and 61, they seek to amend the repeat statement provisions we have already discussed in part. They would remove the reference to "capable of being" understood and replace it with "likely to be" understood. The "likely to be" understood formulation proposed in the amendment mirrors Clause 1.
	I understand why the amendments have been tabled, but Clauses 1 and 3 are two distinct parts of the Bill. The difference in the current drafting is designed to reflect that. In Clause 1, a statement must have been made to an audience. The court is then required to make an assessment of whether the audience to whom the statement was made is likely to understand that statement as an encouragement. In Clause 3, however, a different assessment is made. The police have to make an assessment of whether a statement made available to many people via the Internet is capable of being understood by certain persons as an encouragement. The difference is that in Clause 1 we know the audience, while in Clause 3 the police do not specifically know who the audience to which the statement is being made is, and of those potential people, whether they are likely to be so encouraged. The amendments would limit unduly the ability of the constable to issue a notice.
	Currently, it may well be that in issuing the notice, the constable is aware that the statement is unlikely to encourage others to terrorist acts because it has, for example, been posted on a website run for the benefit of children's education. However, he may be concerned that the statement is such that certain people, if they were to see it, might understand it as such an encouragement and that, in serving the notice, he may make the web host aware of it so that it can be taken down. This assessment is not one of whether persons are likely to understand it as such an encouragement, but where it is capable of being so understood.
	The consequence of the amendment would be to prevent the constable issuing a notice in the circumstances I have just outlined. He would issue a notice only where he could reasonably make out that such a statement existed and there were persons viewing that statement who would understand it as an encouragement. That would limit unnecessarily the utility of this clause.
	In anticipating the argument against that—what if the constable does not get the judgment right, which has been put in the past; what if the statement appeared in such a place or in such a way that those viewing it were not likely to understand it as such an encouragement, even though it was possible to see that other people in the world might consider it as such an encouragement and the notice was still used—there would be two options. The web host, on looking at the material in question, might choose to take it down anyway. Alternatively, the web host might leave it up if he was confident that it was not a statement that people viewing his website would take to be encouraging either because of its nature or because of the nature of his website. The amendments do not allow for that possibility and limit the utility of the notice issuing provisions to no clear benefit.
	For the reasons I have set out, I hope that the noble Lord will be content to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: In moving Amendment No. 70, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 71 to 73, which are in my name in the group.
	The amendments are suggested by the Law Society of Scotland and concern the giving and reception of a notice under Clause 3. These are obviously importance steps as service of a notice has all the consequences set out in Clause 3(3). First, it identifies that which is unlawfully terrorism-related; secondly, it requires the relevant matter to be withdrawn or modified; thirdly, it gives the warning of the consequence of failure to comply with the notice within two working days; and, fourthly, it explains how, even if the person has complied, that person may subsequently become liable if the relevant matter becomes available to the public. That means that certain defences may no longer be open to an accused by whom a notice has been received in a subsequent prosecution for an offence under Clause 3. That offence carries with it the very serious penalties which can be imposed on conviction under Clause 2(10).
	Given the importance of such a notice and the seriousness of the consequences, it is suggested that these amendments are required, particularly in relation to individuals, unincorporated companies and the like. The amendments require that service be restricted to personal service in every case; recorded delivery is insufficient. This is particularly important as recorded delivery could be effected without the knowledge of the individual concerned. For instance, under Clause 4(1), a notice may simply be sent to his last known address and not served upon him personally. Equally, so far as a body corporate or a firm is concerned, or indeed an unincorporated body of association—these being the bodies mentioned in subsections (2), (3) and (4)—it is conceivable that recorded delivery could be received, for instance, by some very minor employee of those bodies, wholly without the knowledge of those who would be concerned to see that appropriate steps are taken to avoid the consequences which flow from the provisions of Clause 3. It is obviously intended that the serving of the notice should give time for steps to be taken to rectify what is perceived to be the problem. It is suggested, and these amendments are tabled for that purpose, that in a matter of such importance as this, there should be personal service and that the matter should not simply depend on a postal service.
	I am conscious that if the amendments were to find approval with the Committee, it would be necessary also to make a consequential amendment to Clause 4(7). I beg to move.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochbroom, for his amendment because it enables me to explain Clause 4 in greater detail. As has already been explained, Clause 3 does not create a new offence or give the police the power to remove material from websites. Rather, it provides a means by which the police can serve notices on those who host information on websites requiring them to remove or modify statements which the police reasonably believe encourage terrorism or are useful in the commission or preparation of terrorist activity.
	Under Clauses 1 and 2, which create the offences of encouragement to terrorism and dissemination of terrorist publications respectively, a person who provides an electronic device such as a website host has a defence to the offences in those clauses if he can show, among other things, that a statement or publication did not express his views and did not have his endorsement. It is an element also of the defence in Clause 2(8), which applies whether or not a person is providing or using an electronic service, that the matter in the publication did not have the defendant's endorsement.
	The effect of Clause 3 is to deem a person providing an electronic service to have endorsed a statement if he has received a notice under Clause 3 and has failed to comply with it. If the person is accused of an offence under Clause 1 or 2, the effect of Clause 3 is that he cannot take advantage of the defence of non-endorsement in Clauses 1 and/or 2. These notices require that the person on whom the notice is served ensures that the information is not available to the public within two working days of receipt of the notice. Previously, the text referred only to "days", but the Government changed it to "working days" to make it clear that people who receive these notices should not be penalised if they fail to respond over weekends. Clause 3 does not create any new offences; rather, it provides that if a person fails to comply with a notice which has been served, he will no longer be able to argue that material on a website does not have his endorsement and therefore will not be able to take advantage of the defences in Clause 1 (5) and Clause 2(8) or (9).
	Clause 4, to which the noble and learned Lord's amendment relates, sets out the method by which a notice may be served. It simply provides that a notice may either be served in person to the individual to whom it relates or may be served by recorded post or delivery. The use of the postal service in the serving of a notice is not a new provision. It is an accepted fact that the postal service is a trustworthy means of transmitting legal documents and notices. I remind the Committee that all sorts of legal documents, from summonses and notifications of legal duties such as jury service right through to electoral polling cards, are delivered safely by post.
	The amendments would remove the possibility that the police may issue a notice under Clause 3 by recorded post, which would create a disparity between serving a notice under this Bill and other notice-serving provisions that exist. It would also significantly reduce the flexibility of such a system, and could foreseeably increase the cost of doing so, requiring that a constable is sent on lengthy trips to serve a notice that could far more efficiently and cost-effectively be delivered by recorded post.
	I contend that these amendments could create an illogical disparity between notices served under Clause 3 and any important legal notices served under other legislation. There appears no logical reason for restricting the issue of notices in that way, and precedent stands against it. So on those terms, I suggest that the noble and learned Lord withdraws his amendment.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochbroom, for tabling the amendments and for providing us with the opportunity to discuss a clause that we might not otherwise have got around to.
	Clause 5 provides for the new offence of acts preparatory to terrorism. This offence has been supported by all political parties. The offence is intended to facilitate the prosecution of individuals known to have been planning or preparing to carry out a terrorist act. The offence has two elements: first, a person does an act preparatory to committing or assisting others to commit one or more acts; and, secondly, that the act is done with the intent of committing or assisting others to commit such acts.
	We believe that we should not underestimate the seriousness of the activity we are trying to capture. It includes those making home-made explosives with the intention of using that material to kill. It captures those who are conducting surveillance of United Kingdom government buildings or embassies with the intention to kill or harm those who serve the Crown. In those terms, it would not cover the example that the noble Lord gave of providing accommodation. Those supportive activities to acts of terrorism might well fall within Section 38B of the Terrorism Act 2000, as it was inserted by the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001.
	It has been made clear in debates on this Bill that we are confronting a terrorism that is markedly different from that which we faced in the past. Its goal is to inflict casualties without regard to human life, including that of the terrorist. This means that our law enforcement agencies have to intervene much earlier. They can no longer afford to let a carefully planned conspiracy run in order to gather the most evidence possible. The risk to the public is too great. This offence responds directly to that. The new offence will allow the police to intervene in cases where it is clear that there is intent to carry out a serious terrorist attack, even through the details of the attack may not be known in absolute detail. Indeed, the terrorists themselves may not at that point have decided how best to conduct their attack. The terrorists may be carrying out preliminary research for several different types of terrorist attack with a view to carrying out whichever turns out to be the most promising.
	It may be very difficult to prosecute for a specific offence because it will not be possible to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the terrorists intended to use explosives, as that was only one of a number of options at the time. That is where acts preparatory will be useful. But of course it does not mean that we should not underestimate the seriousness of the level of conduct we may be dealing with.
	The consequence of these amendments is twofold. First, it allows for a person to be convicted summarily; and, secondly, it removes certainty from the proposed sentencing framework. The clause as currently drafted does not allow for summary conviction. This represents the serious nature of the conduct we are attempting to capture. If someone is participating in a form of conduct because it aids his intention to carry out a terrorist act, that is in our view a very serious matter. We cannot see how summary conviction for such conduct would reflect the severity of such activity. The amendments also change the current drafting on penalties for conviction on indictment.

Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: This is one of a number of amendments that are to the same effect. The purpose of this amendment is that the prosecution should establish that a person did not take reasonable steps to remove himself in situations where he became aware that the premises were being used for terrorist training or instruction only after attendance there. Clause 8 creates an offence if a person,
	"attends at any place, whether in the United Kingdom or elsewhere; . . . while . . . instruction or training is provided there; . . . that instruction or training is provided there wholly or partly for purposes connected with the commission or preparation of acts of terrorism or Convention offences; and . . . [the person] knows or believes that instruction or training is being provided there wholly or partly for purposes connected with the commission or preparation of acts of terrorism or Convention offences; or [the person] . . . could not reasonably have failed to understand that instruction or training was being provided there wholly or partly for such purposes".
	No account is taken of the situation in which a person, after arrival at premises ,becomes aware that terrorist instruction or training is being provided there and who then takes active steps to disengage him or herself from the situation or is afraid of disassociating him or herself from the group. Apparently, mere attendance at such a place, coupled with the knowledge or belief that such training is being carried out, is sufficient for a crime to be committed.
	It is proper to have an amendment of this kind and to leave the burden on the prosecution to establish that the person did not take reasonable steps to remove himself after becoming aware that the premises were being used for such training or instruction. I beg to move.

Lord Elton: It is a bit late in the evening to ask the Committee to be indulgent to a non-lawyer, but I have to make that plea. I shall be as brief as I can. In moving Amendment No. 89, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 112.
	The amendment refers to the definition of "radioactive material" in the Bill. The Clause 9 definition of radioactive material starts on page 11 at line 11 and, stripped of its inessentials, it states that,
	"'radioactive material' means nuclear material or any other radioactive substance which . . . contains"—
	various substances, and,
	"is capable, owing to its radiological or fissile properties, of"—
	doing four things, which are listed, the fourth of which is,
	"creating a serious risk to the health or safety of the public".
	Could either Minister follow me through what I regard as the maze leading to what then happens? The definition of the public in Clause 20(3) falls into two parts. The first, in paragraph (a), states that all references to the public are to be construed as,
	"references to the public of any part of the United Kingdom or of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom, or any section of the public".
	That is unqualified and therefore applies to all of Part 1. The second definition is in paragraph (b), which goes on to say that it also includes,
	"references to a meeting or other group of persons which is open to the public (whether unconditionally or on the making of a payment or the satisfaction of other conditions)".
	Unlike the first part of the definition in paragraph (a), that part is qualified by the opening words,
	"except in section 9(4)",
	which is the clause that we are debating.
	The effect appears to be that the possession of radioactive material would not be an offence, even if that material was capable of creating a serious risk to the public assembled in a public meeting, unless it was also capable to doing at least one of the other things set out in Clause 9(4)(b)(i) to (iv). It is difficult to see circumstances in which it could not—in which case, the distinction is otiose; but if it could, it is difficult to see the purpose of the exclusion. All that I am asking is what on earth it means. I beg to move.

Lord Goodhart: I support what the noble Lord, Lord Henley, has said. We are particularly concerned that if we go ahead with the target of Amendment. No. 116, two items that we regard as considerably important will be debated late at night—that is, Amendment No. 105 and Clause 21 stand part. I would have thought it would be inappropriate to go beyond the end of Part 1, because it is clear that at that point we will have plenty of time to finish the debate in one more day. Preferably, we should stop before we get to Amendment No. 105.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: Can I clarify something? Initially, the grouping I had indicated that we were going speak to Amendments Nos. 99, 99A and 100, Amendments Nos. 99A and 100 being in the name of the noble Lords, Lord Goodhart and Lord Thomas of Gresford; and to Amendments Nos. 101 and 102, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Elton. Am I right in saying that I now have to reply only to Amendment No. 99?

Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: The amendment would add a further paragraph to subsection (1), which would provide that in Scotland proceedings for any offence under this part of the Bill, which includes Clause 1, 2 and onwards, may be instituted in Scotland only with the consent of the Lord Advocate. It is important to bear in mind that the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions has no similar office in Scotland. The Lord Advocate is the head of the system of prosecution and investigation of crimes in Scotland and is, of course, a Scottish Minister. Furthermore, I should add that he has statutory power to instruct the police in the investigation and reporting of crime under Section 17 of the Police (Scotland) Act 1967 and Section 12 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995.
	For the system of prosecution in Scotland, serious crimes are indicted in his name and are prosecuted in the High Court by advocates depute who hold his commission and, in the sheriff's court, by procurators fiscal, who are permanent prosecutors, but procurators fiscal also prosecute summary offences in the sheriff's court by way of complaints laid by them without reference to the Lord Advocate. In the clause, there are two parts concerning proceedings in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. In subsection (1), proceedings,
	" may be instituted in England and Wales only with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions",
	and similarly in Northern Ireland. Subsection (2) deals with an offence,
	"committed for a purpose wholly or partly connected with the affairs of the country other than the United Kingdom".
	In that case, the Attorney-General must give permission in the case of England and Wales and the Advocate General for Northern Ireland.
	There is no difficulty in Scotland, in the sense that all offences, whether they be offences of the kind covered by subsection (1) or (2), would be subject to the overall responsibility of the Lord Advocate. The important thing is that the Bill provides that certain of the offences can be prosecuted summarily—that is to say, in the sheriff's court by procurators fiscal who would lay a complaint and would not be required to refer the matter to the Lord Advocate.
	I have no doubt that it will be said in response, "Ah, yes, but the Lord Advocate can give directions in such matters". But in a Bill such as this, in which there is a very important public interest, it should be made absolutely plain that all proceedings in Scotland proceed with the consent of the Lord Advocate. That would mean not only indictments, which would in any case proceed in his name, but those matters that were dealt with summarily, many of which could well raise important or delicate issues that could require his consent. It is with that in mind that the amendment has been drafted. I beg to move.